What other fantasy books do YOU read?

[Galadriel]

I finally started on Harry Potter. Not because of the films, but because I've wanted to get into the fandom for a long time, but I kept getting put off by the first few lines in 'The Philosopher's Stone' and by people telling me it was a great work of art I'm around four hundred pages into the fourth book now, and I must say, I'm enjoying it much more than I thought I would. Still, I can't really call myself a 'fan' yet, since I haven't exactly fallen in love with the series the way I did with Lord of the Rings. Oh well, we'll see how it all turns out after I've finished all seven!

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I finally started on Harry Potter. Not because of the films, but because I've wanted to get into the fandom for a long time, but I kept getting put off by the first few lines in 'The Philosopher's Stone' and by people telling me it was a great work of art I'm around four hundred pages into the fourth book now, and I must say, I'm enjoying it much more than I thought I would. Still, I can't really call myself a 'fan' yet, since I haven't exactly fallen in love with the series the way I did with Lord of the Rings. Oh well, we'll see how it all turns out after I've finished all seven!

Harry Potter was really were I started in fantasy...I started reading it in the 5th grade, and fell in love with the first 5 books. When the sixth book came out I went to the midnight release party, which was fun. I fell out of love with the 6th and 7th books though, as I couldn't stand some of the romances...besides, I fell in love with Tolkien in the 7th grade, and never quite went back to HP, though I still read fanfic...

As far as what other fantasy books I read - I'm willing to give most things at least a try...I have The Name of the Wind, Dresdan Files, and a few others waiting to be read. I read a lot of older fantasy too, like George MacDonald's The Princess and the Goblin, and then folklore, mythology, ect...

I tried to reread Narnia in the 7th grade, and hated it...too many religious overtones for me.

[Galadriel55]

@ My Twin Sister: You'll like HP, at least on the first read. It's definitely captvating. Personally, I think that series is addictive because of the tangled intrigue/connections, but it lacks depth. I put off reading it until last year for those very reasons - to prove myself first wrong, and then right again. Then HP also has some plot-based faults, but I won't give spoilers.

This really depends on the reader, because I know many HP fans of various ages. And anyways, I think it is worth reading just to know and to compare, if you get my meaning.

@ Lommy: I was thinking I'm the only one here who read that book. It is rather nice, though, as I said, not brilliant IMO. I definitely agree that reading the entire series would help with the background knowledge (I can talk, I didn't read it... ). Can't say that Polgara is my favourite, especially when it came to the Ontrose part (on my last reread I skipped that whole section). What I liked most was the idea of "good" and "evil" being nothing more than perspective names given to two Purposes. Rather than "I am good and my enemies are bad" it's "some of those who oppose me are doing wrong, so I have to fix that and do right".

@ LadyB: I read Narnia in Grade 5, and at first I was addicted but then I cooled down, because it was too "simple". However, now that I'm a bit older and wiser (...or at least older ) I appreciate the simplicity more...

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

@ LadyB: I read Narnia in Grade 5, and at first I was addicted but then I cooled down, because it was too "simple". However, now that I'm a bit older and wiser (...or at least older ) I appreciate the simplicity more...

If it was just the simplicity of it, I'd still read it and like it, most likely...I, after all, still read Winnie the Pooh and Dr. Suess just for the fun of it at times, as well as Babysitters Club, Nancy Drew, ect... It's more the religious aspects of it that annoy me...if I want religion, I'll read the Bible again.

[Haramu]

Reading and Writing my own Fantasy Book
Should be good enough for me and maybe a few readers as well.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by LadyBrooke

If it was just the simplicity of it, I'd still read it and like it, most likely...I, after all, still read Winnie the Pooh and Dr. Suess just for the fun of it at times, as well as Babysitters Club, Nancy Drew, ect... It's more the religious aspects of it that annoy me...if I want religion, I'll read the Bible again.

Lol, I still read 'The Tale of Peter Rabbit' Yes, I agree, the religious aspects were a turn-off for me. Tolkien's works have a religious base too, but it's less obvious in my opinion.

A lot of people have read the Bible...anyone around here read the Upanishads?

[LadyBrooke]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

A lot of people have read the Bible...anyone around here read the Upanishads?

Not yet...it's a goal in life, I suppose. I need to read it, the Quran, at least one of the Buddhist texts, ect. Personally, I believe an understanding of all religions is important...

I have, however, read portions of the Epic of Gilgamesh for an essay. It was weird...but I liked it. I like ancient literature...I read the entire Iliad and Odyssey for fun, when we had to read a portion for school...The college I'm going to offers Ancient Greek and Latin, but I doubt I'll have time to take them. So, I guess my knowledge will be limited to what I can learn on my own...

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed the third and fourth books. The first two were a bit childish, and the fifth one is dragging more than it should. For me, it doesn't exactly lack character depth, but it lacks depth in theme and creativity. Sure, Rowling describes Hogwarts and some magical villages really well, but there's very little beyond that. I like a larger world to play around with, but that's my personal preference.

Personally, I hated the way it seemed that Slytherin automatically meant you were evil, with a few exceptions (and those weren't presented well either). What's wrong with ambition? And really, why would three people form a school with some evil guy? I liked parts of the fifth one, but I can't stand how Molly Weasley is presented as some kind of good person by Rowling. I mean, I'm not the largest fan of Sirius, but going into somebody's house and insulting them...her insults to him were worse then Snape's for crying out loud. And the way she jokes about love potions...I don't think that many of the good characters, like Molly and Ginny, were really the saints they're presented as by Rowling. I loved book 3 and 4 though...of course, Remus and Fleur are my favorite characters so....

I agree. IMO romance kills a book, unless it's in small amounts. I think that is one of the (big) reasons I loved LotR so much. When I reached the end I was like "Yes, yes, yes! Such little romance!" Of course, Jackson simply had to put an unnecessary amount of it in the movies. Poor, dear Glorfindel

Romance has it's place, but it's not in a fantasy book set at a school, imo. And if the romances had made sense, I might have not had as large problem...but they didn't, with the exception of one or two, and I had the urge to throw the book at the wall when Hermione and Ron got together or Remus and Tonks...they just don't seem like they're suited for each other (and please, any one who thinks they do, don't bring up the anvil sized hints. They were there, but Ron also insults Hermione in every book, is lazy and unmotivated, and makes fun of Hermione's beliefs.) I completely agree about LotR, though...and why did PJ have to do that? Why?

Ditto. I also think that she could really use some better vocabulary. Whenever I think of HP I think of "reckon" - she repeats that word waaay too often. I know she wants to imitate British slang, but it just gets on my nerves. As for the 5th book - I only read the 6th one to find out what Harry's OWL results were. I didn't see any other point in reading on.

Better then me...I got 20 pages into book 7, realized I hated it, and put it down, in spite of wanting to know what would happen. I just couldn't stand the writing style. So, I only finished it when I found MST of it...

[Galadriel]

[QUOTE=LadyBrooke;658559]Personally, I hated the way it seemed that Slytherin automatically meant you were evil, with a few exceptions (and those weren't presented well either). What's wrong with ambition? And really, why would three people form a school with some evil guy?/QUOTE]

I concur, that was the part that seemed the most biased to me. I refuse to believe that so many students would be cheats and sneaks. One quarter of a school? Are you kidding me? All of them stuffed into the same house? That's a recipe for disaster, if you ask me. Yes, it seemed a bit foolish of those people to form a school with someone like that. Also, Rowling really makes it seem like Harry, Ron and Hermione are the only kids in the school with common sense.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

What I liked most was the idea of "good" and "evil" being nothing more than perspective names given to two Purposes.

There's been a discussion of that on the Downs, if you're interested.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

@ My Twin Sister: You'll like HP, at least on the first read. It's definitely captvating. Personally, I think that series is addictive because of the tangled intrigue/connections, but it lacks depth. I put off reading it until last year for those very reasons - to prove myself first wrong, and then right again. Then HP also has some plot-based faults, but I won't give spoilers.

This really depends on the reader, because I know many HP fans of various ages. And anyways, I think it is worth reading just to know and to compare, if you get my meaning.

I love the way you call me your twin sister (UNLESS you are referring somehow to Nerwen Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed the third and fourth books. The first two were a bit childish, and the fifth one is dragging more than it should. For me, it doesn't exactly lack character depth, but it lacks depth in theme and creativity. Sure, Rowling describes Hogwarts and some magical villages really well, but there's very little beyond that. I like a larger world to play around with, but that's my personal preference.

LadyBrooke: I agree. IMO romance kills a book, unless it's in small amounts. I think that is one of the (big) reasons I loved LotR so much. When I reached the end I was like "Yes, yes, yes! Such little romance!" Of course, Jackson simply had to put an unnecessary amount of it in the movies. Poor, dear Glorfindel

Thinlómien: Well, not exactly 'free' of evil, but having much more of a good side to them. God, I need to start being more specific...

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I love the way you call me your twin sister (UNLESS you are referring somehow to Nerwen

No, I'm referring to you. And I believe you were the one that first called me that in reply to one of my first posts! (This one, to be percise... took me ages to find! I was such an idiot back then!!!)

Originally Posted by Galadriel

Yes, I thoroughly enjoyed the third and fourth books. The first two were a bit childish, and the fifth one is dragging more than it should. For me, it doesn't exactly lack character depth, but it lacks depth in theme and creativity. Sure, Rowling describes Hogwarts and some magical villages really well, but there's very little beyond that. I like a larger world to play around with, but that's my personal preference.

Ditto. I also think that she could really use some better vocabulary. Whenever I think of HP I think of "reckon" - she repeats that word waaay too often. I know she wants to imitate British slang, but it just gets on my nerves. As for the 5th book - I only read the 6th one to find out what Harry's OWL results were. I didn't see any other point in reading on.

[Alfirin]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Ditto. I also think that she could really use some better vocabulary. Whenever I think of HP I think of "reckon" - she repeats that word waaay too often. I know she wants to imitate British slang, but it just gets on my nerves. As for the 5th book - I only read the 6th one to find out what Harry's OWL results were. I didn't see any other point in reading on.

Correct choice of words can make or break a book. One of the main reasons I absoulely hated Eric Rücker Eddison's Worm Ouroborous books (which some people regard so hightly they put them and Tolkein on equal fantasy footing, or even say Eddison is infinitely superior). was the language. In an effort to try and make the story as "old time epic" as possible, Edding's chose to usually go with extremely archaic language ("spake' instead of speaks, "crokindrell" instead of "crocodile" etc.) at the beginning this seemed to me okay, but as the book wore on, the choices of language and grammar just became wearying. Olde tyme spelling is fine for a period appropriate piece of literature (Oroborous was written in the 1920's so the "it was the way they talked then" argument doesn't really work here) but after a few hundred pages it get's tiresome. It's rather had to get into a book if you have to have a dictionary next to you and look up every other word. Eddison's work might have been good if it was being read to you, a la a saga or a play (in fact the one thing I came away from the book with was that it would probably make a very good tv series) but read on the printed page, it just got frustrating. I also did not like the end of the story, where the heros discover that not only have all the villians escaped but escaped more or less unharmed (i.e. all thier efforts and sacrafices were basically for nothing) and jump for joy becuse it means they can go through the whole palaver of the book all over again (minus the fairly large number of individuals who died the first time round trying to let the heroes win.). I have no problem dealing with things like odd language, but only when the story is worth it, and in my opinion, in Ourobrous, it isn't
I sort of feel the same way about David Lindsay's A Voyage to Arcturus also often considered a classic. In this case, after having read it through three times, I kept getting the impression that to understand it would require a couple years of modern philisopy, in particular Wittgenstein, and even then you'd have to 100% agree with those philosophers for the book to be meaningful.

[Pitchwife]

Originally Posted by Alfirin

I also did not like the end of the story, where the heros discover that not only have all the villians escaped but escaped more or less unharmed (i.e. all thier efforts and sacrafices were basically for nothing) and jump for joy becuse it means they can go through the whole palaver of the book all over again

Sorry, Alfirin, but I think you missed the point - the villains didn't escape, they were destroyed and then resurrected by the Gods at the request of the heroes, who, being victorious, found that their existence lacked purpose without villains to fight. It's almost a satire on heroism as an end in itself, if only Eddison didn't seem to endorse that absurd heroism - allegedly he was a big fan of Nietzsche, and the end seems to represent his version of the myth of Eternal Return (cf the book's title!).

Tolkien knew The Worm Ouroboros, and I think LotR can to some extent be read as a critique of Eddisonian heroism, starring a reluctant hero who is driven to heroism by fate and love for his home rather than chosing it as a way of life; and cf also Faramir's words in Ithilien: "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend".

- That said, I quite like TWO for its vivid descriptions and some unforgettable characters on the villains' side (Gro!); but I'll gladly admit it comes nowhere close to Tolkien in depth.

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

No, I'm referring to you. And I believe you were the one that first called me that in reply to one of my first posts! (This one, to be percise... took me ages to find! I was such an idiot back then!!!)

Ditto. I also think that she could really use some better vocabulary. Whenever I think of HP I think of "reckon" - she repeats that word waaay too often. I know she wants to imitate British slang, but it just gets on my nerves. As for the 5th book - I only read the 6th one to find out what Harry's OWL results were. I didn't see any other point in reading on.

Did I? I don't remember, forgive me. I shall take a look at that post And you never struck me as an idiot, my dear. Quite the contrary.

I thought the vocabulary in the narrative was fine. The truly awful bits were the dialogue. Yes, 'reckon' does seem to be her favourite word! She does a really poor imitation of British slang, sadly. They don't speak that badly I'm going to give the sixth and seventh books a go, but only because my mother says they were better than the rest (and because my friends would kill me if I didn't read them). *Sigh* It's irritating how they gasp and gawk when I say I haven't read Harry Potter.

PS - Can anyone tell me how to quote different bits of a paragraph at a time? I've no idea how

[Snowdog]

Happy New Year Barrow Downs! Hoping I will be a bit more active here this year? We'll see.

What the tale end of 2011 brought me book-wise was the Steve Erikson book series "The Mazatlan Books of the Fallen'. I'm just now reading book 1 which is Gardens of the Moon'. So far I like it!

[Galadriel]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

What the tale end of 2011 brought me book-wise was the Steve Erikson book series "The Mazatlan Books of the Fallen'. I'm just now reading book 1 which is Gardens of the Moon'. So far I like it!

I tried that book. Couldn't get through it. Unfortunately, there's no library even remotely near where I live (the only relatively decent one is over a thousand miles away) so each book I read must be bought. What a pain.